4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[daidalos.team]

Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by daidalos.team

Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

Subsequent to the consent decree, the Abiding Evil that is NG sold Ingalls Shipyards (and basically, all its surface warfare assets) to another company. Perhaps that modifies the consent decree and makes U.S. ships possible.

If TD doesn't want to mess with that, consider modeling U.S. ship types built entirely by U.S. Navy facilities which were never owned by NG.

For example, Mare Island Navy Yard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Island_Navy_Yard

A useful early WW2 type built here would be the Wickes-class "four stack" destroyer.

Or, if you want the USS Oklahoma, the USS Colorado or the USS California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...ng_Corporation

Bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG.

Or, for the USS New Mexico, USS Tennessee, USS Iowa or USS Missouri:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Navy_Yard

Again, bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG (although the USS Arizona was built here yet somehow the legal eagles at NG claim copyright protection on her).

Or, perhaps look at ships built in shipyards once, or currently, owned by General Dynamics, which seems to be much saner regarding copyright issues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_Ri...ilding_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Iron_Works

That would give you a very impressive roster of U.S. BB and CA types.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

A useful early WW2 type built here would be the Wickes-class "four stack" destroyer.
-----------------

Again, bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG (although the USS Arizona was built here yet somehow the legal eagles at NG claim copyright protection on her).

We already have the Wickes Class in the game, USS Ward and USS Dent.

I believe that NG's USS Arizona copyright is limited to drawings they prepared of the wreck site. This would be an entirely reasonable claim, subject to the terms of their appointment to carry out the survey.

IMO a later class, such as the USS Washington (North Carolina Class), built at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, would be more useful for mission builders.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

I believe that NG's USS Arizona copyright is limited to drawings they prepared of the wreck site. This would be an entirely reasonable claim, subject to the terms of their appointment to carry out the survey.

Given that the survey was probably recent (i.e., within the last 20 years or so), I'll give the NG devil its due for that. OTOH, other "birdcage" superstructure battleships, such as USS Oklahoma or USS Nevada which were present at Pearl Harbor look to be fair game. They would be acceptable stand-ins for ships such as the USS Arizona for anyone other than WW2 battleship geeks.

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

IMO a later class, such as the USS Washington (North Carolina Class), built at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, would be more useful for mission builders.

I completely agree. Pearl Harbor was a unique situation which doesn't really lend itself to long term campaigns. The salvageable ships from that attack were eventually refitted with very different superstructure and armament, so any "Pearl Harbor" battleships are only good for scenarios set on December 7th, 1941.

It would be much more meaningful for Mediterranean or European campaign builderrs to have the order of battle present at Taranto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto) or Midway, especially the smaller ships which were more common and make better targets for strike fighters.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I'll give the NG devil its due for that. OTOH, other "birdcage" superstructure battleships, such as USS Oklahoma or USS Nevada which were present at Pearl Harbor look to be fair game. They would be acceptable stand-ins for ships such as the USS Arizona

NG's copyright cannot extend beyond the reproduction of the drawings they have produced. They have no copyright on images or models of Arizona, unless perhaps if the model is based entirely on their drawings. Their work was carried out for the National Park Service which is responsible for the Arizona site. More here: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/...cs/pap2025.pdf

Incidentally, there is a mod model of the USS Arizona in existence, made by Gofo. He also created models of USS Colorado and USS Tennessee, however they do not comply with stock game model specs. (Polycount too high and texture files too big -- no damage model and other minor things).

[ben_wh]

Would love to learn more about the status of the New Guinea/New Britain map that we have heard of for years.

This map, if made in the same quality as the Solomons maps, can be the centerpiece of 4.13 - at least in the PTO perspective.



Cheers,

[Dauntless1]

Would probably be the only map I would fly!!

Originally Posted by ben_wh

Would love to learn more about the status of the New Guinea/New Britain map that we have heard of for years.

This map, if made in the same quality as the Solomons maps, can be the centerpiece of 4.13 - at least in the PTO perspective.



Cheers,

[Jami]

First of all thanks for the hard work you are doing to keep this sim alive. The new planes and effects are great and the details as taxi to take off offer new possibilities for us mission builders etc.

But there is one thing annoys me and my squadron: the skill levels of AI fighters are too close to each other. So would it be possible to make rookies really rookie (like they really were) and aces may stand where they are. The random skill variation inside the main category makes AI pilots act almost like humans and that’s really a nice feature, but to my mind you’ll face more good skilled AI pilots than bad within the category. I don’t believe that in real life any rookie has been able to take full advantage of his plane’s all features and performance. In addition rookie’s shooting skills are amazing.
My squad has been flying IL-2 about 1500 h together since 2007 and we have seen this sim becoming better year by year. But now the problem is how to give our human rookies possibility to get in this world of air combat without feeling frustrated and hopeless when meeting AI rookies. I don’t want to lose them to War Thunder or similar unrealistic games. Even our most experienced members who have been flying several sims for 15 years think that AI rookies are unrealistic.

So I really hope to see that you’d expand the skill categories so that the rookies are real rookies with small variation and the ace AI pilots stand where they are at the moment - average and veteran somewhere between those. After that it makes sense to build and fly missions with all skill category AI pilots. My squad likes to fly historical or semi missions and we have built over 300 missions based on the memoirs of WWII pilots. And as you very well know there were many more really poor rookies than skilled aces in the skies those days.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Jami

But there is one thing annoys me and my squadron: the skill levels of AI fighters are too close to each other. So would it be possible to make rookies really rookie (like they really were) and aces may stand where they are.

Isn't this already possible in the FMB?

Since AI has gotten so much more human, I'd love to see more AI levels: "untrained" and "superhuman."

Untrained would be for pilots and gunners "straight from the farm" who have insufficient hours of training to be effective in combat.

While they can perform basic maneuvers, they will have some trouble with formation flying, regularly stall their plane during high performance maneuvers, will have virtually non-existent SA, bombing and gunnery skills, except maybe against bombers.

They should show lack of familiarity with the aircraft, doing things like not handling prop pitch or superchargers properly, and possibly damaging the engine with improper throttle changes. If IL2 modeled it, they'd also damage the engine by stressing it before it was fully warmed up.

In combat on their own, they'd use something like the old rookie AI model - basically flying around doing nothing, but with excessively aggressive attacks on obvious targets that can't shoot back. They'll badly overshoot B & Z attacks and might high speed stall due to aggressive turns in turning fights.

Against bombers, or any other target that throws a lot of bullets, they should be excessively timid. They either don't engage at all or attack from extreme range.

Gunnery and bombing skills should be abysmal. They should have no hope of hitting with a deflection shot more than 10-15 * "angle off," and they should regularly shoot at extremely distant targets (300+ m) without correcting for ballistics. Against large targets, they will lead the target as if it were much smaller and closer. They should also hesitate for a few seconds while they line up their shots, even easy shots. This makes snapshots impossible and makes collisions with enemy planes more likely

Bombing will be from extreme range without correcting for wind or target movement and with insufficient correction for airspeed and altitude.

When fighting as part of a squadron, however, Untrained pilots should spend far too much time trying to hold formation and sticking closely to their leader's tail while doing almost nothing useful as a wingman. When formation flying, they should have virtually no SA to their rear.

This level of AI would be appropriate for many German and Japanese pilots in late 1944 to early 1945 and many Soviet pilots in 1942 (and some in 1943) and some UK pilots in mid- to late 1940.

Superhuman would be based on the old model Ace AI - perfect engine management, SA, bombing and gunnery skills as well as improved resistance to G-forces, limited only by the AI's new inability to see through obstructions. Basically, "Terminator" flying an airplane. It would specifically be designed for players looking for an extra challenge, or to make the best historical aces, like Erich Hartmann or Hans Wind, suitably scary.

Currently, Rookie AI seems to be about right for gunnery accuracy from bombers. Average, Veteran and Ace bomber gunners are too effective. Remember, the best that any flexible gunner could do was about 5% hits, and in the game hits from rifle caliber MG seem to be too effective at penetrating armor and engine blocks, starting fires, and inflicting airframe damage.

As for fighter and attack planes Rookie to Average pilots don't seem to be aggressive enough, but their gunnery skills seem to be alright.

I'd prefer a Rookie or Average fighter pilot model where the AI has a tendency to be too aggressive - opening fire too soon, jamming their guns by making long bursts (if IL2 modeled that), bleeding off energy in turn fights with excessively sharp turns and overshooting targets in B & Z fights.

Rookies should also have a distinct preference for "turn and burn" dogfights, even if their plane isn't suited for it. Basically, every noob maneuver that seasoned online players laugh at.

If IL2 modeled it, Rookies might also forget to charge their guns, or otherwise prepare their weapons, prior to combat. They should also have a somewhat higher chance of attacking friendly planes, especially less familiar allied types or easily-confused types (e.g., Typhoon vs. Fw-190 vs. Lagg-5, P-51 vs. Bf-109G vs. Yak series, SBD vs. A6M series).

Originally Posted by Jami

. I don’t believe that in real life any rookie has been able to take full advantage of his plane’s all features and performance. In addition rookie’s shooting skills are amazing.

What would help is more clarification from TD about what the different AI levels mean.

In defense of current Rookie AI, any military pilot who makes it through advanced training and type familiarization is going to be proficient in formation flying and advanced combat maneuvers. What they're going to lack is real-life gunnery experience (or, often any sort of gunnery experience), tactical knowledge and Situational Awareness.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Against bombers, or any other target that throws a lot of bullets, they should be excessively timid. They either don't engage at all or attack from extreme range.

On the other hand, veteran and ace AI shouldn't venture to attack Betties and Wellingtons from level six and without a major speed advantage. Still, they are prone to do so, particularly at low altitudes. They level out well behind the bomber and try to close up in crossfire. Instead, they should dive on the bomber and use their deflection shooting skills. Pitifully, they do not seem to sport against bombers what they do sport against fighters. No head-on attacks, no side passes, only what also a rookie human does.